No disrespect ... but are the Celtics the weakest 1 seed in NBA history?

[Professor Emeritus]

Bruh You don't know much about any of the teams you mentioned (or the league for that matter) you just looked at empty stats to get to your conclusion. For example, that sonics team you mentioned was the defending champions, and they ended up losing in game 7 of the NBA finals. So whatever metrics you came up with?

I didn't go by any fukking metrics. I named a lot of different 1-seeds that were weak.

And you couldn't even get your facts right - the Sonics weren't the defending champs that year, they had lost the year before. It was 1979 when they won the ring.

The 1979 Sonics WERE weak. Yeah, they won a title, but they got it in a span when ALL the teams sucked ass. A huge percentage of the league was on cocaine, most players were coasting through the regular season without giving a shyt, In the two years between Bill Walton's Blazers and the great Magic/Bird rivalry, there wasn't a single great team in the NBA. The Bullets and the Sonics met in the Finals (for the second year in a row) because everyone else straight fell apart. What was the best team they beat - the Westphal-Davis Suns or the Dandridge-Hayes Bullets? Magic came in as a rookie the next year and turned the conference into a joke. The year after that, when Magic choked to death in the first round, a team with a LOSING record won the Western Conference by defeating ANOTHER TEAM WITH A LOSING RECORD in the WCF.

The only mistake I made was not naming all the other 1-seeds in that span too, especially the Bullets.

You're talking about a team that started Sikma-Johnson-Johnson-Williams-Shelton. A team that lost 30 games despite playing in a conference that didn't have a single other team with more than 50 wins. They were NOT a great 1-seed. They were just the most successful team around in a really shytty couple of years for the league.

 

[PS5 Pro]

I didn't go by any fukking metrics. I named a lot of different 1-seeds that were weak.

And you couldn't even get your facts right - the Sonics weren't the defending champs that year, they had lost the year before. It was 1979 when they won the ring.

The 1979 Sonics WERE weak. Yeah, they won a title, but they got it in a span when ALL the teams sucked ass. A huge percentage of the league was on cocaine, most players were coasting through the regular season without giving a shyt, In the two years between Bill Walton's Blazers and the great Magic/Bird rivalry, there wasn't a single great team in the NBA. The Bullets and the Sonics met in the Finals (for the second year in a row) because everyone else straight fell apart. What was the best team they beat - the Westphal-Davis Suns or the Dandridge-Hayes Bullets? Magic came in as a rookie the next year and turned the conference into a joke. The year after that, when Magic choked to death in the first round, a team with a LOSING record won the Western Conference by defeating ANOTHER TEAM WITH A LOSING RECORD in the WCF.

The only mistake I made was not naming all the other 1-seeds in that span too, especially the Bullets.

You're talking about a team that started Sikma-Johnson-Johnson-Williams-Shelton. A team that lost 30 games despite playing in a conference that didn't have a single other team with more than 50 wins. They were NOT a great 1-seed. They were just the most successful team around in a really shytty couple of years for the league.

Bruh, you the one talking about they was a weak team when they was the CHAMPIONS of the year you are talking about, lost in the title game the year before, I'm sorry I was off by 1yr How does that make what you said... correct tho

Instead of just saying you made a mistake, and yeah.. your methods were kinda bootleg, you decided to try to cover it up by saying "Uh yeah, everyone was on coke so that's why my choice still stands!!!"

Really bruh. All the teams sucked cuz everyone was coked out. This is your final answer, really? Really Really

 

[MostReal]

Yes they are

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Bruh, you the one talking about they was a weak team when they was the CHAMPIONS of the year you are talking about, lost in the title game the year before, I'm sorry I was off by 1yr How does that make what you said... correct tho

Instead of just saying you made a mistake, and yeah.. your methods were kinda bootleg, you decided to try to cover it up by saying "Uh yeah, everyone was on coke so that's why my choice still stands!!!"

Really bruh. All the teams sucked cuz everyone was coked out. This is your final answer, really? Really Really

I did admit I made a mistake - I should have included the Bullets too.


We're talking about weak ONE SEEDS. Of course they still look good compared to their competition - you don't end up with a 1-seed unless your competition sucks too. The weakest one seed is likely to come in one of the years that the competition was the shyttiest. How is that so difficult to understand?

Plenty of people have already named teams that went to the Finals - like the 2001 Sixers and the 2002 Nets. The only difference between those years and 1979 is that in '79, BOTH conferences were awful.

I didn't just come with "everyone was coked out that year", even though a huge portion of the league WAS coked out that year. I gave you:


They only won 52 games.

They started Sikma-Johnson-Johnson-Williams-Shelton and were a thoroughly uninspiring team.

They didn't go up against a single great team - their greatest wins were over the Westphal-Davis Suns and the Dandridge-Hayes Bullets

It was one of the weakest eras in modern NBA history, before the Magic/Bird rivalry transformed the NBA.

It was in a Western Conference so pathetic that just two years later, two teams with LOSING records would battle in the Western Conference Finals.



You came back with:

But they won the title!


Can you give me a single reason that that era didn't suck, and that they weren't a shytty 1-seed for only going 52-30 in such a weak era?

 

[Hammer]

probably, they'd get bounced in the first round in the West

 

[USSInsiders]

That Pacers team that was a 1-seed in 2012 or 13 was another fraudulent 1-seed.

 

[Max.]

IT Has shot 33 n 39%(28% from 3) in last 2 playoff years

Playoffs are a different animal...a team will prolly trap him n let avery n smart shoot 20+ a game

 

[Sccit]

1979 BULLETS ARE A DISTANT SECOND

 

[Professor Mac]

First this nikka makes a thread complaining how the Cavs show a lack of respect for not wanting to go after the one seed...

Now he makes a thread saying the Celtics are the weakest 1 seed in the history of the game

Which is it nikka

 

[PS5 Pro]

I did admit I made a mistake - I should have included the Bullets too.


We're talking about weak ONE SEEDS. Of course they still look good compared to their competition - you don't end up with a 1-seed unless your competition sucks too. The weakest one seed is likely to come in one of the years that the competition was the shyttiest. How is that so difficult to understand?

Plenty of people have already named teams that went to the Finals - like the 2001 Sixers and the 2002 Nets. The only difference between those years and 1979 is that in '79, BOTH conferences were awful.

I didn't just come with "everyone was coked out that year", even though a huge portion of the league WAS coked out that year. I gave you:


They only won 52 games.

They started Sikma-Johnson-Johnson-Williams-Shelton and were a thoroughly uninspiring team.

They didn't go up against a single great team - their greatest wins were over the Westphal-Davis Suns and the Dandridge-Hayes Bullets

It was one of the weakest eras in modern NBA history, before the Magic/Bird rivalry transformed the NBA.

It was in a Western Conference so pathetic that just two years later, two teams with LOSING records would battle in the Western Conference Finals.



You came back with:

But they won the title!


Can you give me a single reason that that era didn't suck, and that they weren't a shytty 1-seed for only going 52-30 in such a weak era?

Simple, you think having 65wins shows how good a league is. I say it's the opposite The league sucks now. If you a 1seed with 52 wins that means there is more balance throughout the league. So the 70's had weak basketball you say? How old are you sir?

 

[UserNameless]

Never seen a nikka put up numbers like I.T. and get disrespected...

This dude put up Iverson numbers on better efficiency

Fux with i.t. ... knew he was gonna be special. folks need to stop disrespecting him. they'll beat the Bulls.

 

[KingJay]

the 1994 Atlanta Hawks were weak

Nets and Sixers were also type weak as well.

I can't comment on entire history of the league, and I know thats not what you meant since most of the teams you will mention would have been from the last 15-20 years. Those 3 teams were the first that came to mind in my NBA viewing experience.

Those Sixers would beat these Celtics. 01 Sixers are the only team to beat LA in a playoff game that year. They swept the Spurs, Kings, and Blazers.

 

[KRiLL (+)]

The disrespect in this thread

Y'all so spoiled by superstars averaging 35 on the playoffs and taking the last 10 shots of the team that y'all forgot about team ball.

Isaiah already proved he can ball on the 4th and he's a legit threat, y'all can keep talking shyt about the nikka height.

They have an arsenal of different plays, they are better than they look.

we talking bout PLAYOFFS m8.......he ain't proved shyt in the playoffs yet..

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Simple, you think having 65wins shows how good a league is. I say it's the opposite The league sucks now. If you a 1seed with 52 wins that means there is more balance throughout the league.

When did I say 65 wins shows how good a league is?

If you get 65 wins in a weak year, at least you can say you dominated that weak league. That was Portland in 1978 - dominating a weak league until Walton got hurt. Still a weak league, but at least they're showing out.

But if its a weak league AND you only get 52 wins, then you just plain aren't a great 1-seed.

Hell, just two years later, that conference was represented in the WCF by the 40-42 Rockets and the 40-42 Kings. Does that mean the conference had gotten even better?

So the 70's had weak basketball you say? How old are you sir?

You're calling in age when talking about the fukking 1970s? Since teenagers are just stans who don't know shyt about what they're watching, your opinion on 1970s basketball must be useless unless you over 65, right?



No wonder your rep where it at.

I said that the LATE 1970s had weak basketball. That is just about universally understood. And you haven't made ONE argument to counter it.

The Sonics started Sikma-Johnson-Johnson-Williams-Shelton and were a thoroughly uninspiring team.

They didn't go up against a single great team - their greatest wins were over the Westphal-Davis Suns and the Dandridge-Hayes Bullets

They only won 52 games despite that tt was one of the weakest eras in modern NBA history, before the Magic/Bird rivalry transformed the NBA.

It was in a Western Conference so pathetic that just two years later, two teams with LOSING records would battle in the Western Conference Finals.


Now, what's your argument that they were a great number one? So far you ain't come up with shyt.

 

[louisvandross]

Those Sixers would beat these Celtics. 01 Sixers are the only team to beat LA in a playoff game that year. They swept the Spurs, Kings, and Blazers.

THANK YOU

besides winning 56 games that year, and almost winning game 3 of the finals, they WON the MVP (iverson), defensive POY(mutumbo), 6th MAN (mckie), & Coach of the year (brown).

If we were to make a bracket of ALL TIME WEAK NBA 1 SEEDS, those "weak" sixers are making it to the finals EVERY TIME